Sometimes an author’s ideas are so unique and powerful that his or her name becomes synonymous with the ideas. One example is Niccolò Machiavelli, whose book The Prince advises a new ruler that the end always justifies the means in acquiring and maintaining power. Thus, the term “Machiavellian” describes a plan that is clever, effective, but also deceitful and unethical. Ivan Pavlov, a Russian scientist, rang a bell every time he fed his dogs and demonstrated that over time the dogs associated the bell with food and began to salivate when they heard it. Now conditioned responses like this, such as when high school students respond in certain ways to the bells and buzzers that designate class periods, are called “Pavlovian.” In his analysis of dreams, Sigmund Freud found that the imagery of dreams was full of sexual symbols. Now the practice of finding such symbols in dreams, stories, and everyday objects is called “Freudian.”
The word “Orwellian” is probably almost as commonly used as the terms mentioned above. However, the meanings and associations of “Orwellian” are as complex as the world of the novel. It is sometimes difficult to pin down exactly what someone means by the word. It might refer to a totalitarian government, a government that tries to control all the actions and beliefs of its citizens. It might refer to the use of surveillance technology, such as hidden cameras and microphones, as part of that effort to control. It could refer to the particular ways of speaking and thinking that Big Brother and the ruling party in the novel prescribe in “Newspeak.” It might even refer to the rewriting of history to fit the political needs of the present. Of course, it could be a combination of two or more of the above. As we read 1984, we will return to the question of the meaning of “Orwellian” several times.
Orwell wrote this novel in 1948. He turned the last two digits around to come up with 1984. The novel is a work of science fiction about an imagined future, but it draws on what was for Orwell the recent past, the history of World War II, in which the fascist government of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany fought the communist government of Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union. Although fascism and communism are considered to be opposite political systems, both countries had authoritarian governments with powerful dictators, secret police, and violent suppression of political opponents. In imagining the country of Oceania and its ruler Big Brother, Orwell gives the government the power to watch and control every aspect of a citizen’s life through ever-present two-way “telescreens” that both display propaganda and observe the viewer.
The year 1984 has come and gone, but are the questions and possibilities of 1984, the novel, still relevant? Let’s look at some recent articles.
Christina DesMarais, writing in PC World says in “This Smartphone Tracking Tech Will Give You the Creeps: New GPS Tech Can Track Your Every Move”:
"Privacy fans, take note: A new technology, called Indoor Positioning System, could push your worry meter to the max. IPS allows pinpoint tracking of any Wi-Fi-enabled device, such as a smartphone or tablet, within a building. This means that an IPS service could easily track you—right down to, say, the table you’re occupying in a mall’s food court—as long as your mobile devices’ Wi-Fi is turned on. And, if you’re a typical device user, your Wi-Fi is always on, right?"
Does it bother you if a subscriber to a location service can tell exactly where you are at all times without your knowledge by following your device? Tom Henderson, writing in ITworld, became so concerned about how much Google knew about his online behavior that he tried to completely eliminate Google from his online services. In “How I Divorced Google: Leave Google, and Save Your Privacy in 7 Days (Or At Least Get a Start on It),” he writes,
"When I sit at home, Google (unless I consciously prevent it) knows where I sit, on what machine, and what time of day I’m there. Data is collected not only from the search engine site, but sites that I visit that have Google maps, and so forth. The penetration of Google’s ability to sniff a single individual’s location and preferences is unprecedented. Google knows more about me than my mother."
Of course, if Henderson’s mother subscribed to the Indoor Positioning System described above, she would know where he is too. Is this what people would call “Orwellian” surveillance? In these examples, the purpose of the surveillance or what the observers will do with the information are not clear. It is not the government that is observing the citizens. However, the government certainly has access to information of this type if it wants to. Of course, sometimes it does. In fact, the FBI created its own Internet surveillance system called “Carnivore,” which it later abandoned in favor of commercial products. The Associated Press reports,
"The FBI has effectively abandoned its custom-built Internet surveillance technology, once known as Carnivore, designed to read e-mails and other online communications among suspected criminals, terrorists and spies, according to bureau oversight reports submitted to Congress. Instead, the FBI said it has switched to unspecified commercial software to eavesdrop on computer traffic during such investigations and has increasingly asked Internet providers to conduct wiretaps on targeted customers on the government’s behalf, reimbursing companies for their costs."
Jeff Tyson, in “How Carnivore Worked,” observed that for many, it was “eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s book 1984.” Apparently, there have been misuses of this technology. Peter J. Georgiton, writing in an Ohio State Law Review article, “The FBI’s Carnivore: How Federal Agents May Be Viewing Your Personal E-Mail and Why There Is Nothing You Can Do about It,” says,
"Instances of misconduct by the FBI demonstrate that unsupervised use of Carnivore could easily lead to abuse. In the end, judicial supervision of the FBI’s use of Carnivore will be necessary to prevent the Orwellian situation of 1984—where everyone’s thoughts and writings are being probed by an overbearing, omnipotent, and intrusive federal government."
Two of the sources above connect the government’s attempts to read the emails and other online communications of “criminals, terrorists, and spies” to the “Orwellian” world of 1984. At this point you should have some idea of what people mean when they use the word “Orwellian.”
To access a full-text copy of 1984 by George Orwell, click here:
Introduction:
Sometimes an author’s ideas are so unique and powerful that his or her name becomes synonymous with the ideas. One example is Niccolò Machiavelli, whose book The Prince advises a new ruler that the end always justifies the means in acquiring and maintaining power. Thus, the term “Machiavellian” describes a plan that is clever, effective, but also deceitful and unethical. Ivan Pavlov, a Russian scientist, rang a bell every time he fed his dogs and demonstrated that over time the dogs associated the bell with food and began to salivate when they heard it. Now conditioned responses like this, such as when high school students respond in certain ways to the bells and buzzers that designate class periods, are called “Pavlovian.” In his analysis of dreams, Sigmund Freud found that the imagery of dreams was full of sexual symbols. Now the practice of finding such symbols in dreams, stories, and everyday objects is called “Freudian.”
The word “Orwellian” is probably almost as commonly used as the terms mentioned above. However, the meanings and associations of “Orwellian” are as complex as the world of the novel. It is sometimes difficult to pin down exactly what someone means by the word. It might refer to a totalitarian government, a government that tries to control all the actions and beliefs of its citizens. It might refer to the use of surveillance technology, such as hidden cameras and microphones, as part of that effort to control. It could refer to the particular ways of speaking and thinking that Big Brother and the ruling party in the novel prescribe in “Newspeak.” It might even refer to the rewriting of history to fit the political needs of the present. Of course, it could be a combination of two or more of the above. As we read 1984, we will return to the question of the meaning of “Orwellian” several times.
Orwell wrote this novel in 1948. He turned the last two digits around to come up with 1984. The novel is a work of science fiction about an imagined future, but it draws on what was for Orwell the recent past, the history of World War II, in which the fascist government of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany fought the communist government of Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union. Although fascism and communism are considered to be opposite political systems, both countries had authoritarian governments with powerful dictators, secret police, and violent suppression of political opponents. In imagining the country of Oceania and its ruler Big Brother, Orwell gives the government the power to watch and control every aspect of a citizen’s life through ever-present two-way “telescreens” that both display propaganda and observe the viewer.
The year 1984 has come and gone, but are the questions and possibilities of 1984, the novel, still relevant? Let’s look at some recent articles.
Christina DesMarais, writing in PC World says in “This Smartphone Tracking Tech Will Give You the Creeps: New GPS Tech Can Track Your Every Move”:
"Privacy fans, take note: A new technology, called Indoor Positioning System, could push your worry meter to the max. IPS allows pinpoint tracking of any Wi-Fi-enabled device, such as a smartphone or tablet, within a building. This means that an IPS service could easily track you—right down to, say, the table you’re occupying in a mall’s food court—as long as your mobile devices’ Wi-Fi is turned on. And, if you’re a typical device user, your Wi-Fi is always on, right?"
Does it bother you if a subscriber to a location service can tell exactly where you are at all times without your knowledge by following your device? Tom Henderson, writing in ITworld, became so concerned about how much Google knew about his online behavior that he tried to completely eliminate Google from his online services. In “How I Divorced Google: Leave Google, and Save Your Privacy in 7 Days (Or At Least Get a Start on It),” he writes,
"When I sit at home, Google (unless I consciously prevent it) knows where I sit, on what machine, and what time of day I’m there. Data is collected not only from the search engine site, but sites that I visit that have Google maps, and so forth. The penetration of Google’s ability to sniff a single individual’s location and preferences is unprecedented. Google knows more about me than my mother."
Of course, if Henderson’s mother subscribed to the Indoor Positioning System described above, she would know where he is too. Is this what people would call “Orwellian” surveillance? In these examples, the purpose of the surveillance or what the observers will do with the information are not clear. It is not the government that is observing the citizens. However, the government certainly has access to information of this type if it wants to. Of course, sometimes it does. In fact, the FBI created its own Internet surveillance system called “Carnivore,” which it later abandoned in favor of commercial products. The Associated Press reports,
"The FBI has effectively abandoned its custom-built Internet surveillance technology, once known as Carnivore, designed to read e-mails and other online communications among suspected criminals, terrorists and spies, according to bureau oversight reports submitted to Congress. Instead, the FBI said it has switched to unspecified commercial software to eavesdrop on computer traffic during such investigations and has increasingly asked Internet providers to conduct wiretaps on targeted customers on the government’s behalf, reimbursing companies for their costs."
Jeff Tyson, in “How Carnivore Worked,” observed that for many, it was “eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s book 1984.” Apparently, there have been misuses of this technology. Peter J. Georgiton, writing in an Ohio State Law Review article, “The FBI’s Carnivore: How Federal Agents May Be Viewing Your Personal E-Mail and Why There Is Nothing You Can Do about It,” says,
"Instances of misconduct by the FBI demonstrate that unsupervised use of Carnivore could easily lead to abuse. In the end, judicial supervision of the FBI’s use of Carnivore will be necessary to prevent the Orwellian situation of 1984—where everyone’s thoughts and writings are being probed by an overbearing, omnipotent, and intrusive federal government."
Two of the sources above connect the government’s attempts to read the emails and other online communications of “criminals, terrorists, and spies” to the “Orwellian” world of 1984. At this point you should have some idea of what people mean when they use the word “Orwellian.”